Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20130320 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 20 2013 Chairperson, Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Nora Berko, Jay Maytin, Jamie McLeod, Sallie Golden, Patrick Sagal and Jane Hills. Willis Pember was absent. Staff present: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Justin Barker, Planner MOTION: Jamie moved to approve the minutes of February 13t1i , second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Jane moved to approve the minutes of February 2011 , second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. 208 E. Main Street— Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Special Review and Variances — Continued Public Hearing Amy said this is a continued public hearing and conceptual review for a new addition at the back of the mines cottage. You are being asked to consider on-site relocation, special review for reconfiguration of the trash enclosure. Setback variances are on the table and a request to waive the parking requirements. We are looking at the preservation of the miner's cottage that has a lean-too on the back. An existing non-historic addition is partially being retained with a residential cube at the back that is slightly linked to the historic shed. Staff is not supporting the enclosure on the roof. There are a couple of building code issues that are not resolved right now. There is an egress problem from one of the bedrooms. A ramp is needed from the side of the salon back to the alley and could be shown at final. On the setbacks the board wanted a minimum of three feet on either side of the cube. We do support the revised trash area and it is an improvement over what is there now and we support the waiver of one parking space and the cash in lieu fees. Staff is recommending conceptual approval. Sarah Upton represented the applicant. Sarah went over the changes and the shed has shifted to the west about three feet in order to have access to the alley. The connector piece is a little different in shape. 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES O ' MARC [ 20, 2o13 The stair is along the east side of the property. In doing so that pushes the bedroom and egress window over to the west. The stair enclosure is important to the client because the site is very tight and they would like access to some outdoor space. The enclosure allows for better access, better use of the roof top. On the new construction on the upper level it steps back three feet. The issue with the ramp is that it has to go to the trash area. Jamie said the coat closet is proposed to be filled in to complete the corner. The next level is set back three feet and the roof terrace is at the same level as the second floor. Jamie asked about the window well for the salon. We might be able to do a light well under the ramp to allow light in to the basement. We are maxed out at net livable even though we are under the FAR. The ramp falls under the IBC which is more restrictive. We would also need a variance. Sarah said we are taking space away from the salon to allow the residence to come in. Jay suggested a sloped stair cover rather than from the front to the back. Sallie asked if the wrap around stair was incorporated how much lower would the enclosure be. Sarah said it has been incorporated and it is as low as it can be at 7 feet. We are willing to look at options such as Jay's suggestion. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public comment portion of the agenda item. Rich Pierce said he and his Mother are neighbors to the east. Our biggest concern is if it moves to the east and how it will affect our property line. We are supportive of the project in general. We want to make sure the construction people are mindful of our property. Exhibit I letter Jake Vickery one of the owners of the property on the west. Our property is like the twin of this miner's building. The revised plans improve a lot of things. We are hung up on the 0 lot line on our side of the lot split line. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES O ' MARC [ 20 2013 There are a lot of functional concerns, roof drainage, fire access, egress, site drainage. We need to do something positive on the space between them. That space needs to be shared by both sides and a minimum of six feet which means each side would contribute three feet. We are going to do something similar to what the Tulio's are doing. By having it on the property line it pushes the burden onto our property. You could move the lower wall in three feet which would create the space. Photograph Exhibit II Chairperson, Ann Mullins closed the public comment section of the agenda item. Ann identified the issues: Connector Staircase enclosure, covered or not covered 3 foot setback as opposed to the one foot requested Ramp Trash Parking Waiver Patrick said this is one of the premier properties on Main Street and anything we can do to enhance that I would be in favor of. I feel the three foot setback should be respected due to safety and fire concerns. My main concern is the glass issue on top of the roof. I also feel the staircase should not be enclosed. Regarding guideline 10.9 I am OK with the deck as long as it is invisible from Main Street. Jamie said she is ok with the shed reduction of two feet. Trash and utility plan is ok as long as it is approved by Environmental Health. I am in favor of the cash-in-lieu. My two concerns are the ramp and the lightwell and the fact that we have no drawing as to what you want and what the Building Dept. wants which would affect the neighbor to the east. I am not in favor of increasing the setback and filling in the corner. Lets not put a burden on the neighbor next door. The roof top enclosure is proposed as glass and I do not feel that is appropriate when lights are on etc. at night. I am in favor of the roof deck but just not in favor of the enclosure. I am also in favor of waiving the parking spaces but still getting the cash-in-lieu. Nora said she is in favor of keeping the three foot setback and the roof deck should not be enclosed. My concern is height creep and the height on the block is really low. I would like to see the cash and respect the setbacks. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 20 2013 Jane said she agrees on the setbacks and they are an issue. The only outstanding issue for me other than the set back is looking for an option for the stair enclosure. There are many creative solutions that could make it better for the community. I am in favor of waiving the parking and agree with the trash enclosure. Sallie said she supports the shed and supports waiving the cash-in-lieu and the parking waiver. I feel the light-well can be worked out. The west side variance should remain the same. On the roof top I understand why you want it enclosed as it is the only "yard" you have to use. The design needs worked on to get the board on your side. In the West end there are enclosures that are a lot smaller. Jay said the enclosure is the sticking point. The new design is a great improvement. The ramp can't go anywhere else so it shouldn't be a sticking point. The shed is OK. It is a great improvement from the last meeting. Ann said she feels the parking and cash-in-lieu should be waved. Michael thanked the neighbors for their comments. The ramp just came from the last meeting. We tried to make the cabin stand alone and we have no other livable outdoor space other than the roof top. The stairway is a huge concern going up three levels. If I didn't need the enclosure I wouldn't ask you for one. We are under 28 feet and if I were to put the gable up there the entire mass on the block would be 28 feet. I'm not attached to the glass and we can change the materials. The only other way to get there is an outside stairway on the east side of the building. The salon is a big part of the project and I need every bit of space to make this work. It is a tight space. I need to bedrooms for my kids and one for us and a kitchen and living room. I need volume either on the interior or exterior. Jay pointed out that the enclosure is under the height limit of around 27 feet. Through materials we might want to look at our thought process again. Sallie said no one is opposed to putting something up on the roof. Patrick said if he had a gabled roof there would be more space and you could have a loft. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC-PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 20 2013 Ann pointed out that we are also looking at the surroundings and street elevations around the property. MOTION: Ann made the motion to approve resolution #7 as recommended by Staff. The east entry to the commercial space to provide a ramp towards the alley as well, where an accessible route to the alley trash enclosure is needed. Eliminate the enclosure for the roof access stair. Provide a $15,000 letter of credit. Entirely respect a 3' setback along the west lot line with all new construction. 3' east sideyard reduction for new lightwells. 3'2" east sideyard setback reduction for an existing entry into the salon. 5' rear yard setback reduction for the shed. 2' west sideyard setback reduction for an addition to the Victorian. Trash OK as approved by Environmental Health Dept. One required on-site parking space and cash-in-lieu fees waived. Jane said the applicant could build a more massive project. I would suggest they come back one more time to study the roof and stair. This project deserve that opportunity. Jay said they are preserving the shed. Motion second by Nora. Jay said he would support the motion of the west setback was taken out. The applicant embraced the shed and we should approve this project and they also brought the plate height down. Jane said she would like to see this continued rather than killing the development project. It is an ongoing business here in Aspen. Nora withdrew her second. Motion second by Patrick. Patrick, yes; Jay, no; Jane, no; Nora, no; Sallie, no; Jamie, no; Ann, yes. Motion fails. MOTION: Jay moved to eliminate #2, change #4 to a 2 foot setback on the west and keep everything else in the resolution. Motion second by Jane. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 20 2013 Vote: Jamie, no; Sallie, yes; Nora, yes; Jane, yes; Jay, yes; Patrick,no; Ann, no. MOTION: Jamie made the motion to continue the application until June 12th and look and the enclosure and setbacks and look at them properly. The ramp and lightwell need to work together. They also need to study the airlock. Motion second by Ann. Ann said we are basically talking about the enclosure and the setback on the west side and the ramp. Sallie said the applicant needs to know what the building department wants. Jamie asked the board how they feel about the construction on the west side. Ann said the enclosure needs to go away or be radically changed. Jane said she has no problem with the second level. The first level should remain with the 3 feet. Jay is ok with what was presented. Patrick agreed with staff eliminate the enclosure and respect the three foot setback. Sallie said the issues should be restudied so the applicant can move forward. Patrick, no; Jay, no; Ann, yes; Jamie, yes; Sallie, yes; Jane, yes; Nora, yes. Motion carried 5-2. 314 Gillespie — Minor Development— Public Hearing Debbie said the public notice is in order and the applicant can proceed. Exhibit I. Amy said this is a landmark house with an addition to the back that extends to the north. The work proposed is in that area. There is a floor level change that is a safety issue that causes some head height issues with the proposed dormers. There was a discussion as to whether the dormer should 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 20 2013 be shed or gabled. The only condition is that the new construction should not compete with the original detailing of the historic building. Louis Menendez, architect for the project. The motivation is the hazardous condition in the master bedroom suite. The master bedroom has two steps to the bathroom. They are older and the husband has already fallen on the steps. The solution is to raise the floor of the bathroom even with the bedroom floor which raises it about a foot and that causes the walls to be very low about 4 %2 feet. We want to extend the height to 8 %2 feet to give room to the bathroom to be able to reconfigure the fixtures and have two dormers to make the space functional. The addition would be on the second floor at the very back. Part of the existing bathroom will be remodeled. The walls and roof would be continued at the same height. It will most likely not be visible from the street. We are proposing a shed form dormer. There are existing shed form dormers on the house. I am not opposed to changing some of the detailing on the fascia board. We are proposing the same materials. The roof is wood shingles and the wall would be wood painted. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public comment section of the agenda item was closed. Issue: Extension over the flat roof to accommodate the bathroom remodel. Jamie said because this is an addition to an addition I wouldn't change the materials because you are only extending it out 8 feet. Jane, Patrick and Ann agreed with Jamie's statement. MOTION: Jamie moved to approve resolution 47 striking #1 and that the details remain as is. Motion second by Ann. All in favor motion carried 7-0. 114 Neale Avenue— Conceptual Major Development and Variances - Public Hearing Debbie said the public notice is in order and the applicant can proceed. Exhibit I 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 20 2013 Justin Barker, planner said the lot is just over 6,000 square feet and it was part of a lot split in 1998 which split the property in half and moved the house up to the northern part of the property. There is an historic miner's cottage and a non-historic addition. The applicant would like to expand the rear addition and adding a garage and sub-grade living space. For the subgrade they would need a variance. The proposal exceed the allowable FAR dictated by the lot split of 1345 so they are requesting a 500 square foot bonus. Most of the changes are setback from Neale Ave. and are screened by trees. Both floors would be expanded a little toward the south. According to the design guidelines any addition should be set back ten feet from the primary facade and he garage is less than that. Staff feels since it is mostly set sub-grade and into the topography staff feels that it really doesn't compete with the historic facade. If we required the full ten foot space one of the parking spaces would be unusable. Staff finds that the proposed additions are appropriate in mass and scale. The sub-grade space will use the same foundation wall going down. On the north side of the building there is a light well proposed for the sub-grade space. Staff is suggesting restudying the light well so that it can be pushed over between the front edge of the house on King Street. The total area increased is a little over 700 square feet. The first 330 is allowed and the 378 remaining is part of the bonus request. The majority of the bonus is for an area above the garage, a green roof deck expansion. The use of the flatter roofs allows for the historic resource to maintain its prominence. Staff is recommending approval of the front yard variance of six feet for sub-grade space. Restudy the location of the north light well. HPC grant 378 square foot area bonus. Steve Wilson, architect said we have come a long way since our last meeting. Nothing has changed about the entry but we would like to add a picket fence so the dogs don't run out on the Neale Avenue. Everything that is proposed new is inside the setback. Putting a lawn over the garage allows for a walkout condition. We are proposing a snowmelting pervious paving system. We are removing a covered porch and letting it walk out to grade. Most of the addition has been remove below grade. On the existing house the corner is somewhat lost and we will bring that back so you can have a full volume of the historic house. The driveway will come around the house not from the street. On the north side of the house concerning the light well we tried to get it behind something that was a building. Jane asked about the fence and what would be appropriate for final. 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 20 2013 Chairperson, Ann Mullin opened the public comment portion of the agenda item. There were no public comments. The public comment portion of the agenda item was closed. Jamie complimented the applicant for getting the spirit of our code and saying that they respect the historic resource. The plan really respects the historic resource. The front yard variance is OK. I am fine with the light well the way it is and the 378 square foot bonus. Nora said this is a great project and I support it. Sallie said she agreed with the 378 square foot bonus. Jamie said she would give the 500 square foot bonus as long as the plans didn't change. Jay congratulated the applicant for his design and keeping it below the grade of the historic house. Patrick said he appreciates that most of the square footage is subgrade. MOTION: Jay moved to approve resolution #8 and striking #2 and changing the square footage of 43 to 400 square feet so if there is any miscalculations we won't have to see the application again. Motion second by Ann. Motion carried 7-0. Roll call vote: Patrick, yes; Jay, yes; Jane, yes; Sallie, yes; Jamie, yes; Nora, yes; Ann, yes. MOTION: Jay moved to adjourn second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. S� Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 9